defiantgiant

They picked him up off the Cardinals' practice squad, cut Barry Turner to make room for him. When Johnson declared for the draft, some scouts he might end up as a right tackle in the long term, and others thought he'd have to stay put at guard. He's listed as a guard, but he'd be one of the biggest guards in the league - he goes 6'7" 360 pounds (or more.) Either way, it'll be interesting to see if Tice can turn him into anything, although I don't think he'll make any contribution this season. Johnson may be another long-term developmental guy like Webb, but at least it means the brass recognizes that there are problems up front. And if their strategy is to take the shotgun approach and grab a bunch of players on the cheap, I'd rather they get guys like Webb and Johnson, who at least have the physical tools to play in the NFL. Who knows if they can learn the mental aspects, but it'd be a nice windfall if Tice can coach one or both of them up before the start of next season. If Johnson could play guard down the line, he and Webb would make a hell of a big right side: they're about 700 pounds put together.

If Green Bay falls another game behind the Bears between now and Week 17, then we're pretty much home free. Other than that, it's going to be tough. If the Packers only manage to beat the Lions and Giants (which they probably should,) then the Bears need to either run the table or beat Green Bay at Lambeau in January. To put it another way, if the Packers beat the Lions and Giants but lose to the Patriots, here are the five possible scenarios: 1) Bears beat Pats, Jets, Vikings WEEK 17: CHI takes the division (better record) even if GB wins 2) Bears beat Pats and Jets, lose to Vikings WEEK 17: if GB wins they take the division (tiebreakers - division record), if CHI wins they take the division (better record) 3) the Bears beat the Vikings and one of Pats/Jets, lose to the other of Pats/Jets WEEK 17: if GB wins they take the division (tiebreakers - conference record), if CHI wins they take the division (better record) 4) the Bears lose any two games out of Pats, Jets, Vikings WEEK 17: if GB wins they take the division (better record), if CHI wins they take the division (better record) 5) Bears lose all three games out of Pats, Jets, Vikings WEEK 17: if GB wins they take the division (better record), if CHI wins they take the division (tiebreakers - head-to-head) Basically, Green Bay just has to beat Detroit and New York and hope that Chicago can't run the table. Then that Week 17 game at Lambeau is a win-or-go-home for both teams.

I actually think it was the wrong call, but it's inconsequential either way. If he'd actually thrown a forearm to the back of the head, that's one thing. But from what I saw, it looked like he just shoved Cutler in the back, and maybe made some incidental contact with the helmet when they were both falling over; I didn't see a blow to the head, which is what Hochuli called. If that shove were on a running back, there's no way a ref would have flagged it, and when the QB passes the line of scrimmage he's supposed to be treated like any other runner. That's why they teach quarterbacks to slide - because guys like Suh are allowed to deck you once you get past the LOS. Either way, though, it's ridiculous for the media to file that one under "Bears get lucky" or "Lions jobbed by penalties again." It made virtually zero difference in the game. If there's a real storyline there, it's that refs are definitely watching Suh like a hawk. He's gotten hit with some pretty bad calls for what were really just violent-looking legal hits. He tackles Marion Barber by his hair (which is legal,) the refs call it a horsecollar; he shoves Cutler in the back, the refs call it an elbow to the head. They're clearly getting a little trigger-happy when it comes to flagging that guy.

Dilfer's pretty consistently wrong about quarterbacks, which is kind of funny. He's incredibly critical of Cutler, meanwhile he touts Mark Sanchez as a top-10 quarterback, talks about how he doesn't understand why nobody gives Sanchez credit, etc. Here are some stat lines, Trent: Cutler: 201/318 (63.2%) for 2545 yards (8.0 YPA), 17 TDs, 10 picks. 92.8 QB rating Sanchez: 218/397 (54.9%) 2636 yards (6.6 YPA), 16 TDs, 11 picks, 77.4 QB rating ...and that's despite the fact that Sanchez gets phenomenal pass protection and his receivers are Santonio Holmes, Braylon Edwards, and Jerricho Cotchery. Cutler's taken more than twice as many sacks, has a bunch of young receivers who are still developing, and he's outperforming Sanchez by a mile. Every time I hear Trent Dilfer give his opinion on a quarterback these days, I just tune him out.

Yeah, I have to agree. Those two games made it obvious that the status quo wasn't working on offense, and then the Bears came out of the bye with a completely different gameplan on that side of the ball. I don't think that was a coincidence. Regardless of how it came about, Martz's new conservative playbook has made the Bears a WAY tougher team to beat. Going into the bye week, the offense had only passed the 20-point mark in 2 out of 7 games, and they were only averaging 18 points a game. And that's including the game against Carolina, where they scrapped the air show and ended up scoring 23 points. If you take that game out and just look at the ones where they tried to be the Greatest Show on Turf, they were averaging just 17 points and they'd only broken 20 one time, against an imploding Cowboys team. So they go conservative on offense during the bye week, and since then Chicago's scored over 20 points in every game BUT one, and their average score is up to 24 points from 17-18. I don't think they'd be doing nearly that well if they'd stuck with the status quo. If they'd beaten the Redskins and Seahawks, they'd have gone into the bye 6-1 on a three-game winning streak. If that happens, I'm betting that they don't change the offense during that bye week. And if they were still airing it out and averaging 17 points a week, we would probably have lost to Philly, Detroit and Buffalo. Without those two losses as a wake-up call, the Bears could easily be 8-4 instead of 9-3 and they'd be on a two-game skid instead of a five-game streak.

Seriously, it's just lazy journalism - they're latching on to an easy storyline because of what happened in Week 1, when there's really no comparison. Regardless of whether either call was right or wrong, it's obvious that one was important and the other one wasn't: Week 1 - The call on Calvin Johnson turned a Lions go-ahead score into a 2nd-and-10 from the 25, down by 5, with 0:24 left in the 4th quarter and no timeouts. If the call goes the other way, the Lions are up by 2 and the Bears get the ball back with about 15 seconds to play. Week 13 - The call on Suh turned a Bears 2nd-and-2 from the 14 into a 1st-and-goal from the 7, down by 3 in easy field goal range, with about 9:00 left in the 4th quarter. If the call goes the other way, the Bears are still in range to tie with a chip-shot field goal, and they still have two downs to pick up 2 yards for the 1st. Even if Detroit forced them to take the FG, they'd still be tied up with at least 8 more minutes left to play. The difference between having a lead with 15 seconds left and needing a long TD pass with 24 seconds left...THAT'S the difference between winning and losing. A difference of 7 yards when you're in FG range to tie either way and there's 9 minutes of game left? That's totally inconsequential.

Not that I disagree (especially since I'm actually taking trademark law this semester) but the demand for knockoffs is a very real thing. I mean, these Chinese sites that have been getting shut down recently? Some of them were selling high-quality fake Premier jerseys for under $40. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who can't afford $110 for a real jersey, but who would gladly pay $40 for one. I think if Reebok and the NFL really want to run these guys out of business permanently, they're going to have to start bringing their own prices down, so there isn't as much demand for the cheap fakes.

I totally agree, Jay's been executing the system even when there's pressure on him, which is huge. I think a lot of it has to do with Martz carving out bigger roles for Olsen and Earl Bennett, especially in the red zone. They've been good safety valves, and Cutler's clearly comfortable checking down to them when there's pressure. Before the bye week, how many times did we see him get pressured, make about five reads without finding anybody, and then take a sack or throw a pick? Nowadays, that pressure gets through and he finds Bennett or Olsen or Forte, no big deal. Then Martz dials up a few quick-hitters or running plays, so Cutler's out of the fire for a little while. I think that's been huge for his confidence and his decision-making. He's still under siege out there, but he doesn't look rattled by it, which is crucial since the o-line is still allowing TONS of pressure. Martz has done a phenomenal job compensating for a god-awful o-line since the bye, and I think we're seeing the results from Cutler now.

Detroit's been playing everybody in the division close all year - they're definitely not a joke any more. If Green Bay lost to them, that would be HUGE; as-is, the Packers are in much better shape than the Bears in terms of tiebreakers. It's looking more and more like Chicago's going to have to either finish a game ahead of the Pack or stay even with them and win in Week 17 at Lambeau.

I don't know...Haynesworth's playing lazy this season, and I'm sure Marinelli would hate that, but I do think a lot of his motivation problems might stem from not liking Jim Haslett's system. He didn't seem to have the same effort problems back when he was in Tennessee, where they just asked him to attack his gap and get in the backfield. Between playing for Marinelli, being on a winning team, and getting back to what he does best, maybe Haynesworth might find himself more motivated if he came to Chicago. I'm sure he'll want a lot of money if he hits the open market, but I don't know if he'll get it, considering how bad the stories out of Washington have been. Maybe he'd be willing to sign a prove-it deal that makes him a free agent for 2011 - something close to the vet minimum, but where Chicago can't franchise or transition-tag him. That way he can play his way back into a big contract with some other team, and the Bears get some help making a Super Bowl run in the meantime. Bottom line: if the Bears can sign him and think they can convince him to play to his ability, what would it hurt? Haynesworth and Peppers together would make for a dominant d-line, which would have to help Chicago's chances at a deep playoff run. They probably wouldn't be able to retain him long-term, but I could see him helping Chicago for the rest of 2010.

Yeah, I don't think the Bears did badly at all against Detroit's offense. That's been one of the more productive offenses in the NFL all season, and Stanton did a lot better than I thought he would. The Bears' D wasn't spectacular, but holding a high-scoring offense to 20 points is more than good enough. I am a little worried at how much Detroit's front 4 abused the Bears' o-line, though. Even with Vanden Bosch on the sidelines, they just couldn't block ANYBODY out there. Cutler was getting sacked or hurried more often than not on passing plays - the offensive line was playing matador up front. Detroit has a good d-line, but they're not THAT good, especially with KVB out of the picture. The really worrisome thing was that the pressure was just leaking in from everywhere. It wasn't like one guy was getting beat over and over. I saw basically everybody on the line screw up a block at least once. Also, how many games in a row have we seen Tice chewing the whole group out on the sidelines? I can't remember the last game that didn't have at least one shot of the Bears' o-line getting the riot act from him.

Yeah, no kidding. They're more of a threat going forward than the Vikings, in my mind. They've finally turned all those high draft picks into a ton of talent. They're a tough team even without Stafford and Vanden Bosch...if everybody gets healthy and they draft a good corner and some linebackers, look out.

OK, I take back everything I said about drafting a wide receiver. If the Bears don't get some help up front, they won't have a quarterback before too long.

Apparently Fitz's contract contains a no-trade clause that he'd have to waive before the team could deal him. A no-trade clause is a thing the player's camp bargains for, as opposed to the team - my guess is that Fitz wants to stay put, unless he's had a major change of heart since they worked out his current deal. And apparently the Cardinals are intent on keeping him, too. I'd guess he stays out in Arizona.

Just when I thought this season couldn't get any better. First Favre goes down in flames, then he takes his coach with him. Awesome. Although I wish they'd waited until after the second Bears-Vikings game to can Childress. If Leslie Frazier is as good a coach as I think he will be, a Bears sweep of Minnesota just got a little harder to pull off.

It's an interesting thought if Arizona really wanted to deal him, but I'm sure they'd be asking for more compensation than Chicago could afford to part with. If they wouldn't take a 2nd for a 28-year-old Boldin, I shudder to think what they'd want for a 27-year-old Fitz. My guess is at LEAST a 1st and a 2nd, and there's no way Chicago could afford to give that up. It's a shame, because Fitzgerald is exactly the receiver I'd want for Cutler - if anybody could bail Jay out on those throws into coverage, it's him. The other problem is that any team that trades for him would be picking up his contract - Fitz signed a 4-year, $40 million deal back in 2008, and I'm sure he's hit some escalators in his contract already. I don't know all the specifics, but that contract has some ridiculous stuff in it: for example, if his team gives him the franchise tag, they have to pay him $23 million for that one season. Given the picks Angelo spent on Cutler and the cash he spent on Peppers and company, I'm not sure the Bears could afford Fitz either way you cut it.

Yeah, Vanden Bosch on the Lions wears them too. They're supposed to make the ball stand out from the background or something like that.

Oh yeah, all the media people who said he'd lost it as a returner look pretty stupid now, huh? I can't wait until he breaks that record.

Yeah, you couldn't ask for a better Tampa-2 linebacking group than Briggs-Urlacher-Tinoisamoa. I'm not looking forward to having to replace any of them, but if there's a silver lining, it's this: there's very little demand for Tampa-2 linebackers these days. The 3-4 teams used to have a big advantage in personnel because it was easy to find 3-4 OLBs and nobody else really wanted them. I think the Tampa 2 teams have that advantage now: there are only, what, 3 or 4 teams left that run it as their base defense? Off the top of my head, there's the Colts, Bears, Vikings, and Giants. And the Tampa-2 is like the 3-4, in that it has a use for guys who are tweeners in any other system. It used to be that the 3-4 teams got great value by finding undersized DEs that none of the 4-3 teams could use and making them outside linebackers. But now the pendulum's swung the other way, everybody's looking for 3-4 OLBs, and the Tampa-2 teams are going to get great value picking coverage LBs who are too small to play in the 3-4. The best pure Tampa-2 LB in the draft is only going to have like 3 or 4 teams really interested in him, and who knows if the Colts/Vikings/Giants will need a linebacker. The Bears could really have their pick of those guys when it comes time to replace our current LBs.

Oh, I'm not saying he wasn't good on kickoff returns. Not by any stretch. I'm saying that, when you look at his KR yardage and how often he scored on KRs back in 2006-2007, there have been other elite kickoff returners in the league who were about as good. That's part of why there wasn't TOO much downturn on KRs when they put Manning or Knox back there - put them behind the same blockers and there's not a big dropoff between Hester and any other elite kick returner. The difference between Hester on kick returns and Hester on punt returns is the difference between "arguably the best KR in the league" and "hands down the best PR in history." I could see an argument that one or two other guys are in the same conversation as Hester when it comes to kickoff returns. Nobody is even in the same universe on punts.

Thigpen's supposed to be a pretty mobile guy, but apparently he also tends to try and string plays out when there's nothing there. That could work in Pep's favor - he's fast enough to run most quarterbacks down if they scramble.

I'd like to see a pair of sacks out of Pep this game. Banged-up offensive line and a third-string quarterback? It's time for him to put something in the stat line.

He wasn't a bad WR, to be honest - if he hadn't missed 3 games last season he would have put up 950-1000 yards. Plus, they kept him on punt returns, where he was the most special anyway. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but Hester hasn't scored on kickoffs THAT much more than other very-good kick returners. The area where he's just miles better than everyone is on punts - nobody has even come close to scoring as often on punts as he has. I don't blame the coaching staff for trying him as a WR, especially since other teams wouldn't give him the ball any more on returns. That said, it's clear now that the role they gave him in the Vikings game is the best one for him. Handle all the returns, come in for a specific package of plays on offense. They need to stick with that going forward.

Yeah, with the way the Tampa 2 funnels everything to the Will linebacker, I wouldn't be surprised to see Briggs break Urlacher's record when all's said and done.

Yeah, when you look at it in terms of number of returns, it's really staggering. There's no question that Hester's the best ever.